2008-08-27-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2008 Page 3 changed, and the units were staggered forward as they went up the hill. The applicant said that instead of the model requested at the preliminary plan meeting they provided cuts and sections. The Board was asked to keep in mind that the density and massing on this site would be less than in an approved subdivision on Shade Street. Architectural renderings for units 1-3 have hip roofs without dormers. While the density of the area with units 1-5 would be higher in this development the density on the site would be much greater if a conventional plan was used instead. In a conventional development the footprints would be larger with heights of approximately 40 feet, and there would be significant grading and vegetation removal. Mr. Waitt said this plan has given the Board what it requested in the newly passed bylaw on special residential developments by providing a variety of housing stock; was it valid to discuss density as well? If so, the bylaw should have been written differently. The grading, landscaping and massing were designed well for this site. He argued that the proposal would be preserving resources and providing more open space by clustering. They would consider realigning the entrance drive to preserve more trees, relocating it over the infiltration system, which would provide more space between the units and abutters. Board Comments: Mr. Galaitsis asked if the new proof plan included the preservation of the existing house. Mr. Waitt said they would not preserve the buildings, but would wait out the demolition delay. Mr. Galaitsis asked whether the developer could achieve a 4-lot proof plan if the main house were preserved. Mr. Waitt said that preservation of the existing house would result in a proof plan with only 3 lots and with no house lot in the eastern pocket of the parcel. However, Mr. Wait added, it was never considered to save the house in a conventional plan. He added that the building height would be 40 feet, there would be substantial grading, removal of vegetation and 25-foot setbacks as opposed to 50-foot setbacks. Ms. Manz asked if the pedestrian path would be handicap accessible. Mr. Waitt said it would not be possible due to the incline. Ms. Manz asked how would the main house and carriage house be treated? Mr. Lopez said they would be renovated and a two-car garage would be added to the rear of the main house. Mr. Zurlo asked if the carriage house needed a tremendous amount of repair or would the developer build it from the ground up if needed. Mr. Lopez said the intention was to preserve and maintain the two and work with the Historic Commission.